if Core implements the smallest block size increase, BOOM XT is history and the network will upgrade right away.
Bitcoin XT is not a thing that can go away because it's the idea that the free market is stronger than politics. The BIP Congress is gridlocked, but the market wants progress. Maybe it won't be the blocksize next time. The BIP Congress better get its shit together or some altcoin is gonna leave Bitcoin in the grease pit forever. 
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20962. (Read 26609741 times)
August 22, 2015, 10:02:49 AM
August 22, 2015, 09:54:05 AM
if Core implements the smallest block size increase, BOOM XT is history and the network will upgrade right away.
That's exactly my opinion also.Yet none of the core devs are willing to reach any kind of compromise, even if the most insignificant raise of block size would do it.Fucking core DIVAS. WTF are you waiting for? Double digits?
August 22, 2015, 09:53:07 AM
The market WILL price in as BTC has failed, be prepared for ridiculously cheap Bitcorns (or Buttcoins or whatever)....
August 22, 2015, 09:32:59 AM
if Core implements the smallest block size increase, BOOM XT is history and the network will upgrade right away.
August 22, 2015, 09:30:50 AM
There's a lot of discussion here about the pros and cons of a bigger blocksize, but other threads elsewhere on this forum are more informative about this subject. What I am interested in is, what are you people thinking this whole blocksize discussion will mean for the price the coming weeks or months?
I'm asking because I'm usually dead wrong when trying to predict what will happen. This will probably mean the price will sharply rise very soon, as I have sold my entire stash @ 208 euros hoping to buy back a lot cheaper when this whole thing is settled (one way or the other).
I'm asking because I'm usually dead wrong when trying to predict what will happen. This will probably mean the price will sharply rise very soon, as I have sold my entire stash @ 208 euros hoping to buy back a lot cheaper when this whole thing is settled (one way or the other).
As long as there is uncertainty, there will be a downward pressure. Uncertainty will dissappear long before new year, and the larger blocksize will be accepted by all. Then, price can rise, because unhampered new adoption will necessarily lead to a higher price.
1/ stfu with your unhampered unexistent mainstream adoption
2/ stfu with your blocksize pseudo science
3/ stfu with your uncertainty that only your Gavin idol created.
August 22, 2015, 09:19:41 AM
There's a lot of discussion here about the pros and cons of a bigger blocksize, but other threads elsewhere on this forum are more informative about this subject. What I am interested in is, what are you people thinking this whole blocksize discussion will mean for the price the coming weeks or months?
I'm asking because I'm usually dead wrong when trying to predict what will happen. This will probably mean the price will sharply rise very soon, as I have sold my entire stash @ 208 euros hoping to buy back a lot cheaper when this whole thing is settled (one way or the other).
I'm asking because I'm usually dead wrong when trying to predict what will happen. This will probably mean the price will sharply rise very soon, as I have sold my entire stash @ 208 euros hoping to buy back a lot cheaper when this whole thing is settled (one way or the other).
As long as there is uncertainty, there will be a downward pressure. Uncertainty will dissappear long before new year, and the larger blocksize will be accepted by all. Then, price can rise, because unhampered new adoption will necessarily lead to a higher price.
August 22, 2015, 09:02:30 AM
August 22, 2015, 08:53:19 AM
This fork is about bigger blocks, right now. Why keep pushing straw man arguments? It's not the last update to the Bitcoin protocol. It's not the final version of the Bitcoin protocol.
There is no straw man here. It's attacking the fundamental rationale behind what is happening.
2 devs saw that BTC should go another way regarding one of its parameters and they forked it. If they can do that, why not do the same for some other parameter, as they see fit?
For the sake of argument I am willing to accept that those are slippery slope arguments, but it's still not what's being proposed. And that seems to be quite common among those who oppose XT.
Poster earlier said "we need faster btc, not 10 minutes BTC".
Andersen and Hearn said "we need bigger btc, not 1mb BTC"
Next thing you know, a guy who doesn't follow protocol, just like Andersen and Hearn did, forks it in favor of 2x - 5x faster transactions and claims all the other guys are cripple coiners for insisting on a time limit that is slow and that can't rival visa. He proclaims that speed is a necessary element for getting wide adoption and that otherwise we'll be favoring payment processors that can take 0-conf transactions - so we really NEED these lower conf. times.
See how good it sounds? But these populist appeals to bigger-better-faster are bullshit.
If you ask anyone whether they want a bitcoin that can transact faster or be able to cope with more transactions, they will all say yes. Why wouldn't they? But there are very good technical reasons why we don't currently have 10mb blocks, or a high block frequency, or zero fees, or or or.
For most people these technical reasons are elusive, and that means that their decision in favor of a "better" bitcoin can be heavily influenced due to all those factors that they ignore.
So let's just leave the actual devs that know how BTC works, and that perform very thorough analyses on how it'll work out if they change key parameters, to decide the next development steps of BTC.
This is still a slippery slope argument. You're assuming that the Bitcoin ecosystem is so stupid that they will adopt just any change no matter how destructive it would be. If so, then Bitcoin is doomed anyways and we should just all give up. If there are no arguments pro core and/or against this XT implementation then I don't see what you're trying to say here. Are you worried about the open source nature of Bitcoin?
PS. You can disagree with Gavin, but to suggest that he doesn't know what he's doing warrants a bit of an explanation. I would be very interested to hear how he went from chief scientist to bumbling ignoramus.
August 22, 2015, 08:33:09 AM
220 seems to be a solid floor we've seen before. I'm guessing this is the break even point for miners and they don't sell below 220. Everybody seems scared to buy right now even though 2 months ago people were wishing they would of loaded up at 220. Funny how that works.
Interesting, thx!
August 22, 2015, 08:29:45 AM
Once Gavin & hean out : ccmf.
Else you might just wanna kiss bitcoin goodbye.
Else you might just wanna kiss bitcoin goodbye.
August 22, 2015, 08:29:00 AM
220 seems to be a solid floor we've seen before. I'm guessing this is the break even point for miners and they don't sell below 220. Everybody seems scared to buy right now even though 2 months ago people were wishing they would of loaded up at 220. Funny how that works.
August 22, 2015, 08:25:04 AM
There's a lot of discussion here about the pros and cons of a bigger blocksize, but other threads elsewhere on this forum are more informative about this subject. What I am interested in is, what are you people thinking this whole blocksize discussion will mean for the price the coming weeks or months?
BTC depends on faith. If that's shaken by schisms then I can't see how that would help the price. No market likes uncertainty and a brand new market likes it even less. I think we'll have a clear direction long before January myself.
August 22, 2015, 08:23:17 AM
There's a lot of discussion here about the pros and cons of a bigger blocksize, but other threads elsewhere on this forum are more informative about this subject. What I am interested in is, what are you people thinking this whole blocksize discussion will mean for the price the coming weeks or months?
I'm asking because I'm usually dead wrong when trying to predict what will happen. This will probably mean the price will sharply rise very soon, as I have sold my entire stash @ 208 euros hoping to buy back a lot cheaper when this whole thing is settled (one way or the other).
I'm asking because I'm usually dead wrong when trying to predict what will happen. This will probably mean the price will sharply rise very soon, as I have sold my entire stash @ 208 euros hoping to buy back a lot cheaper when this whole thing is settled (one way or the other).
August 22, 2015, 08:09:21 AM
is crypto done?? 
August 22, 2015, 08:02:31 AM
August 22, 2015, 07:37:11 AM
August 22, 2015, 07:29:53 AM
So let's just leave the actual devs that know how BTC works, and that perform very thorough analyses on how it'll work out if they change key parameters, to decide the next development steps of BTC.
Indeed and that's exactly what Gavin and Mike did.
And no they didn't fork anything, besides the GitHub repository. If bitcoin forks it's because more than 75% wants it. No need to cry about it now.
Some other news:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-21/brazil-has-yet-another-big-mess-on-its-hands-after-state-default
I guess the experiment failed big time, best to flood the entire country and start from scratch. I even heard in the hallways that one of their supposedly smart Professors has given up all hope and rather wastes his time online then to help his fellow citizens...
August 22, 2015, 07:11:52 AM
August 22, 2015, 07:02:30 AM
August 22, 2015, 06:53:52 AM
This fork is about bigger blocks, right now. Why keep pushing straw man arguments? It's not the last update to the Bitcoin protocol. It's not the final version of the Bitcoin protocol.
There is no straw man here. It's attacking the fundamental rationale behind what is happening.
2 devs saw that BTC should go another way regarding one of its parameters and they forked it. If they can do that, why not do the same for some other parameter, as they see fit?
For the sake of argument I am willing to accept that those are slippery slope arguments, but it's still not what's being proposed. And that seems to be quite common among those who oppose XT.
Poster earlier said "we need faster btc, not 10 minutes BTC".
Andersen and Hearn said "we need bigger btc, not 1mb BTC"
Next thing you know, a guy who doesn't follow protocol, just like Andersen and Hearn did, forks it in favor of 2x - 5x faster transactions and claims all the other guys are cripple coiners for insisting on a time limit that is slow and that can't rival visa. He proclaims that speed is a necessary element for getting wide adoption and that otherwise we'll be favoring payment processors that can take 0-conf transactions - so we really NEED these lower conf. times.
See how good it sounds? But these populist appeals to bigger-better-faster are bullshit.
If you ask anyone whether they want a bitcoin that can transact faster or be able to cope with more transactions, they will all say yes. Why wouldn't they? But there are very good technical reasons why we don't currently have 10mb blocks, or a high block frequency, or zero fees, or or or.
For most people these technical reasons are elusive, and that means that their decision in favor of a "better" bitcoin can be heavily influenced due to all those factors that they ignore.
So let's just leave the actual devs that know how BTC works, and that perform very thorough analyses on how it'll work out if they change key parameters, to decide the next development steps of BTC.
Jump to: